Thus, the interpreter's ‘interference’ may (paradoxically) contribute to the impression of the interpreter's invisibility required by public institutions. While the addition of discourse markers might be regarded as evidence for a mediating interpreter, and hence as contrary to public authorities’ Codes of conduct, such additions are justified by the aim of providing a rendition that achieves relevance by increasing the sense of mutuality between hearer and original speaker. In particular, renditions may include discourse markers not found in the original but which are understood as attributed to the original speaker. My data from interpreter-mediated police interviews shows that interpreting practice is variable with respect to the inclusion of discourse markers. However, the role of discourse markers in the representation of a point of view that is not the interpreter's shows that this account must be modified in order to explain how interpreters suppress their voices to maintain an impression of mutuality between hearer and original speaker. Interpreting is analysed within relevance theory as a special case of attributive use (cf. In this paper, I apply Blakemore, 2010, Blakemore, 2011 relevance-theoretic analysis of the role of discourse markers in free indirect thought representations to the use of similar expressions by police interpreters.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |